Re: virus: Memetical Axioms

Brett Lane Robertson (
Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:53:33 -0500

At 10:37 AM 9/22/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>> I didn't mean this post (below) as a flame. I really do mean the words that
>> I have written in an objective sense. There is a social phenomenon whereby
>> a person denies themself, projects themself onto someone else, destroys the
>> other, internalizes the results and ends up being without self.
>Wasn't your self dimminished a little by writing this, Brett? Or the
>last post to me?
>I find it interesting that you and Tad are of the same mind on this.
>-Prof. Tim

Perhaps the social illusion of self was "dimminished (sic)"; but my "Self",
*no*. Whatever I do increases my Self, for it is my Self that does it.

I saw a picture of Prince William (Di's 15 yr. old son). Was his "Self"
diminished by the death of his mother? He looked smug. From the view of a
king-to-be (an individualist, hermeneutically speaking) someone else's death
only confirms one's own being. Which is not to say that the death didn't
effect him, only that from a unified perspective it didn't really touch him
(and I want to make clear that his lack of accountability *to* his mother's
death extends to his lack of accountability *for* her death...that his
failure to buy into the external, "social", appearences of his
self-as-member of an external situation--ALSO--in no way implies that he was
in some way responsible for her death).*

So, by comparison I am saying that, as a social self, my appearence was
diminished (from an external perspective); but to the degree that I maintain
a kingly approach--not buying into the self as a social construct...not
being the appearence of self but rather being the self which appears--I was
not diminished. Further, your soullessness (or lack of soullessness) is not
my doing. Similarly, my noticing something about the character of your
writing (your character?) does not bring that characteristic about.

I fail to understand the reference to Tad. As I have not formed a bias
toward or against him (and am unaware of the social personna he has
acquired), I am not sure if this is honor by association or slander by
association. I can only say that from where I am sitting, all appearences
are purely coincidental; as I am not, nor have I ever--to my knowledge--been
the aformentioned "Tad"..and any attempt to associate me with that person
must surely fail on these grounds alone.


*and I should add that not only do I understand the attitude but I applaud
it and think it highly fitting for a prince...even though it will be
misunderstood as a lack of compassion by lesser men (and women)

Rabble Sonnet Retort
The past always looks better than it was. It's only pleasant
because it isn't here.

Finley Peter Dunne (Mr. Dooley)